1.JADEWELL VS.

LIDUA
Case Name JADEWELL VS. LIDUA
G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013

Topic Institution of criminal actions

Ticker Parking, wheel clamps. Which filing commenced the running of

prescriptive period. Prescription of the violation committed here is two
months from discovery of the offense.

Doctrines For violation of municipal or city ordinances, the period of prescription

therefor is two months reckoned from its discovery. This period is
interrupted by the filing of the Information in court and not by the filing
of complaint before the Prosecutor. (Basis: Act 3326, Sections 1,9, and
11 of Rules on Summary Procedure)

FACTS
● Jadewell Parking Systems is an authorized private parking operator in Baguio
CIty. It is also authorized under Section 13 of the City Ordinance to render any
motor vehicle immobile by placing its wheels in a clamp if the vehicle is illegally
parked.
● The Resolutions alleged that respondents (several persons in separate
occasions), were illegally parked and they also failed to pay their parking fees so,
Jadewell personnel clamped to the cars’ respective left front wheel. Then, the
respondents forcibly removed such clamps (valued at P26K). Thus, Jadewell
filed its Complaint-Affidavit before the OCP of Baguio City.
● Respondent Benedicto Balajadia likewise filed a case charging Jadewell
president, Rogelio Tan, and four (4) of Jadewell's employees with Usurpation of
Authority/Grave Coercion.
● Balajadia’s arguments in his Answer - His car was not illegally parked. He did not
steal the clamp. He merely removed it so his family could continue using the car,
as the clamp was illegally placed by Jadewell personnel.
● In the Resolution (of OPP of San Fernando, La Union), the Acting City
Prosecutor found probable cause for the charge of Usurpation of Authority
against Jadewell. On the other hand, the latter found no probable cause for the
charge of Robbery, nonetheless the Prosecutor found that there is a violation of
the subject City Ordinance by removing the clamps and by their failure to pay the
parking fees.
● Then, two criminal Informations were filed before the MTC of Baguio City for the
violation of the said ordinance.
● The accused therein filed a Motion to Quash on several grounds: 1)
extinguishment of criminal action or liability due to prescription; 2) failure of the
 Information to state facts that charged an offense; 3) and the imposition of
charges on respondents with more than one offense.
- The offense was allegedly committed on May 7, 2003, the Information was
filed on October 2, 2003. Thus, the offense has already prescribed
pursuant to Act No. 33261 which provides that offenses cognizable by the
MTC shall prescribe after two months.
- The MQ was granted, and the Informations were dismissed.
● Jadewell filed an MR. They argued that the period of prescription of offenses
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. Thus, while it
may be true that the Informations in these cases have been filed only on October
2, 2003, the private complainant has, however, filed its criminal complaint on May
23, 2003, well within the prescribed period.
- The respondents filed an opposition, and the judge issued a Resolution
upholding the MQ.
- In the Resolution, the judge ruled that under Section 9 of the Rule [sic] on
Summary Procedure, the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted
on the date the case is filed in Court. He added that in case of conflict, the
rules on summary procedure shall prevail over SEction 1 of Rule 110
because the former is a special law (or a more specific one).
● JADEWELL - Thus, Jadewell filed a Petition for Certiorari before the RTC
alleging that the judge committed GAD by dismissing the Informations due to
alleged prescription of the offense. Jadewell argued that pursuant to Section 1,
Rule 110, "the institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running of the
period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided in special
laws."
- They further contended that the filing of the criminal complaint with the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City, not the filing of the criminal
information before this Honorable Court, is the reckoning point in
determining whether or not the criminal action in these cases had
prescribed.
- The offenses charged are covered by the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure, not by the old Rules on Summary Procedure. Considering that
the offenses charged are for violations of a City Ordinance, the criminal
cases can only be commenced by informations. Thus, it was only legally
and procedurally proper for the petitioner to file its complaint with the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City as required by Section 11 of
the new Rules on Summary Procedure, these criminal cases "shall be

1
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL
ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO
RUN
 commenced only by information." These criminal cases cannot be
commenced in any other way.
- They added that the Zaldiva ruling is not applicable as in that case, the
complaint was to be filed directly with the MTC as required by Section 9 of
the Rules on Summary Procedure.
- The offense was punishable by a City Ordinance and not a Municipal
Ordinance, hence, Act 2236 is not applicable.
● RESPONDENTS -
- Sec. 2 of Act 3326. Prescription shall begin to run from the
day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the
same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof
and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation
and punishment. Xxxx The prescription shall be interrupted
when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person,
and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are
dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
● RTC - Since cases of city ordinance violations may only be commenced by the
filing of an Information, then the two-month prescription period may only be
interrupted by the filing of Informations. The PetCert was dismissed.
- Jadewell filed an MR, which was denied.
● Hence, this Petition.
ISSUE
Which FILING is considered in this case in determining whether an action has been
instituted? Filing before the COURT.
Whether the filing of the complaint before the OCP tolled the prescriptive period for the
offense. (NO)
Which law applies in instituting of action for violations of city or municipal ordinances
(Rules on Summary Procedure or Section 1, Rule 110 of ROC)?

RULING
From the book: Section 1 of Rule 110 of ROC provides that: “institution of criminal action
shall interrupt the period of prescription for the offense charged unless otherwise
provided in special laws”

Re: Prescriptive period

● Art. 91 of RPC Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period

of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime
is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and
 shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without
the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped
for any reason not imputable to him. (General law)
● With regard to the prescription period, Act No. 3326,2 as amended, is the only
statute that provides for any prescriptive period for the violation of special
laws and municipal ordinances. No other special law provides any other
prescriptive period, and the law does not provide any other distinction.
(Special law)

Here, the offense was committed on May 7, 2003 and was discovered by the
attendants of the petitioner on the same day. These actions effectively commenced the
running of the prescription period.

Procedural rules:

● Section 1 of 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure provides that it shall govern,

among others, (3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances. In relation thereto:

Sec. 11. How commenced. — The filing of criminal cases falling within the scope
of this Rule shall be either by complaint or by information: Provided, however,
that in Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities, such cases shall be
commenced only by information, except when the offense cannot be
prosecuted de officio.

Here, Baguio City is a chartered city pursuant to Baguio Incorporation Act or Act No.
1963 of 1909, otherwise known as the charter of Baguio City. Thus, the filing
considered is the filing of INFORMATION, not the complaint.

→ Under Section 9 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, "the complaint or information

shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior preliminary examination or
preliminary investigation." Both parties agree that this provision does not prevent the
prosecutor from conducting a preliminary investigation if he wants to. However, the
case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, whether or not the
prosecution decides to conduct a preliminary investigation. This means that the running
of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in
court and not on any date before that.

2
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if
the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for
its investigation and punishment.

The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall
begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
 ● There is no distinction between the filing of the Information contemplated in the
Rules of Criminal Procedure and in the Rules of Summary Procedure.

Here, when Jadewell filed the Complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor of Baguio, the
prescription period was running. It continued to run until the filing of the Information.
They had two months to file the Information and institute the judicial proceedings by
filing the Information with the Municipal Trial Court. The conduct of the preliminary
investigation, the original charge of Robbery, and the subsequent finding of the
violation of the ordinance did not alter the period within which to file the
Information.

Re: Information
SEC. 5. Information. - An information is the accusation in writing charging
a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor, and filed with the
court. The information need not be placed under oath by the prosecutor
signing the same.

The prosecutor must, however, certify under oath that –

a) he has examined the complainant and his witnesses;

b) there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof;
c) the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against
him; and
d) the accused was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.

● The Manual for Prosecutors provides that for violation of a special law or
ordinance, the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day of
the commission of the violation, and if the same is not known at the time, from
the discovery and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted only by the filing of the
complaint or information in court and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy.

Notes:
● The failure of the prosecutor to seasonably file the Information is unfortunate as it
resulted in the dismissal of the case against the private respondents. The Court
realizes that under the above interpretation, a crime may prescribe even if the
complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor's office if, intentionally or not, he
delays the institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late.
Summary of the rules in institution of criminal action:
Crime - Crime - What What to file Filing - Which Next to be filed
where court/office

Outside Needs PI (421) Complaint OCP/OPP Information with

MM or Resolution before proper
non-charter court.
ed cities
No need PI Complaint Directly MTC/ If with OCP/OPP,
MCTC/MTCC or OCP/OPP then files
Information with Reso
OCP/OPP before the proper court.

Within MM Needs PI (421) Complaint OCP/OPP Information with

or Resolution before proper
Chartered court
Cities
No need PI Complaint MeTC/MCTC/MTCC, If with OCP, OCP then
or files Information with
With OCP Reso in proper court
Note: Not sure with difference of OCP/OPP as to jurisdiction.

FYI:
The following are the first level courts:

1) Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC) are first level courts in Metro Manila
2) Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) are first level courts in each municipality.
3) Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC) are first level courts in each city outside
Metro Manila
4) Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC) are first level courts in two or more
municipalities